Skip to comments.Third Time
Posted on 06/01/2006 7:52:30 AM PDT by Mel Gibson
click here to read article
I havent been very popular for posting two other articles like this about the fact that President Bush, a man I respect and voted for twice, is largely responsible for S2611, a bill of which most members of this site object. One thread I posted disappeared into who knows where without so much as a word. I am new to this site but as someone who voted for Barry Goldwater and every Republican since then, I reserve the right to disagree with my President.
As a rule of debate, I believe we can respectfully disagree with President Bushs position on this issue and know that he is operating from principle and admire him for it. However, calling each other Trolls when we disagree with him is not only sophomoric it is dangerous. He is an honorable man doing a difficult job but he needs to listen to others as well as to his heart.
On the ground in America, regular people worry about the changes wrought by the biggest wave of immigration in our history, much of it illegal and therefore wholly connected to the needs of the immigrant and wholly unconnected to the agreed-upon needs of our nation.
I believe Peggy has found her voice again...
"Unfortunately, I must agree with you. However, the current two parties have survived since the Civil War. Splitting a party is (correctly) seen as a sure way to hand control over to the other side since we do not have a parliamentary system here."
This paragraph is--sadly--true under our current winner-take-all electoral college system (at least where 3d party presidential candidates are concerned). The electoral college should be maintained, no question about that. But, to enhance the growth of third parties capable of breaking the suffocating "vanilla vs vanilla" contests we have every 4 years, we in the conservative movement should push for true proportionalization of the EC. Put simply, in a state with 10 electoral votes, the pres. candidate with 60 percent of the vote gets 6 votes, 30 percent gets 3 EVs, and the candiated with 10 percent gets 1 EV. Why would this be an improvement over our current system?
1. It gives conservative voters in true-blue states like NY, RI, MA a reason to get out of bed on election day.
2. It prevents false mandates (Clinton in 1992 only gets 43 percent of popular vote but an EC "landslide").
3. Regarding third-paries, a proportional EC gives third-party candiates--and votes--a reason for being. Let's say we had a proportional EC as of today. Assume "hildabeast" is the dem candidate in 2008 and George Allen is the GOP candiate (just to give the candidates names). A proportional environment would encourage third parties to break from the "demopublicans". Most likely a predominately Black party would form from the dems, perhaps with Jesse as its candiate. Perhaps a paleocon, nativist party would spin off the GOP, with Pat at the helm. Neither Hillary or Allen gets the magic 270 EVs. Though Jesse and Pat may have less than 2 doz EVs between them, they have powerful leverage over Hillary and Allen respectively, saying in effect, "I'll give you my EVs to get you over 270, but you MUST pledge the following ..."
Thus, small third parties are given real power in this scenario, power beyond their size.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.